Obama's Pre-crime indefinite preventive detention for future crimes

Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
canndo said:
That's nice, so what rights have been removed in persuit of what of Obama's agendas?
Click to expand...
A man inherits a slave and keeps him enslaved. Isn't he still a slave master even though he wasn't the person that originally enslaved somebody ? Doesn't he have the power to release this slave?

Obama oversees the DEA. Ultimately he is still in charge of the drug prohibitionists. He is the MASTER over others, he is the slave master. He keeps the slave trade going, there is NO way around this is there?
 
canndo

canndo

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
A man inherits a slave and keeps him enslaved. Isn't he still a slave master even though he wasn't the person that originally enslaved somebody ? Doesn't he have the power to release this slave?

Obama oversees the DEA. Ultimately he is still in charge of the drug prohibitionists. He is the MASTER over others, he is the slave master. He keeps the slave trade going, there is NO way around this is there?
Click to expand...

Again you seem to prefer shocking references and absolutes. Slave, Master, slave trade and the like.

I asked what rights were removed and for what agenda. There are few slaves in the U.S. and those that are here are being held illegaly. The rest of what you said is too allegorical to be addressed.
 
OGEvilgenius

OGEvilgenius

Well-Known Member
ChesusRice said:
"The first thing is this repatriation issue -- which is that, if you have detainees at Guantanamo that you want to send home but cannot be sent back to their home country because of human rights concerns, what do we do with them? The second problem is that you do have countries which have not taken, are not able to take, the security measures that you feel are required to return the people to those countries. And then lastly, you have to figure out what do you do with the residual population? The people that we can’t find a way to send home and that we can’t prosecute." ~ Vijay Padmanabhan, Former State Department Lawyer

Read the full interview with Vijay Padmanabhan >>One of the toughest barriers to closing Guantanamo is the question of what to do with prisoners whom the U.S. government does not wish to prosecute or to continue holding. In the case of prisoners such as the remaining Uighur detainees from China, whom the U.S. government has not been able to find a country willing to take, one option would be to release some of them into the United States. Recently, a few European nations, such as Portugal, Germany, Switzerland and France, have signaled a willingness to accept some detainees for resettlement, as a gesture of goodwill to the new administration. Another subset of prisoners whose disposition the government will need to resolve includes roughly 90 Yemenis whom the Bush administration has been unwilling to release because of concerns that the Yemeni government cannot sufficiently monitor them.
Click to expand...
That clearly does not say what you claim it does.

Some nice tap dancing though.
 
OGEvilgenius

OGEvilgenius

Well-Known Member
canndo said:
Again you seem to prefer shocking references and absolutes. Slave, Master, slave trade and the like.

I asked what rights were removed and for what agenda. There are few slaves in the U.S. and those that are here are being held illegaly. The rest of what you said is too allegorical to be addressed.
Click to expand...
Private prisons are overrun with slaves.

The entire 5th amendment has been destroyed. Granted a judge recently ruled HR1540's provisions unconstitutional (and absurd) but Obama and the Gang are fighting back claiming you can't overturn a law never enforced. Of course one of the main problems of the law is that you never actually have to let anyone know it's been enforced (see: lack of due process, which according to Holder, isn't the same as judicial process anyway - that was in defense of the illegal killing of American citizens, a separate issue, but of course related).
 
OGEvilgenius

OGEvilgenius

Well-Known Member
I guess Canndo believes the 5th amendment is overrated

Oh, let's not forget the bills limiting free speech either.

Did Obama sign HR1540, did he target and kill American citizens in a foreign country you are not at war with?
 
canndo

canndo

Well-Known Member
OGEvilgenius said:
I guess Canndo believes the 5th amendment is overrated

Oh, let's not forget the bills limiting free speech either.

Did Obama sign HR1540, did he target and kill American citizens in a foreign country you are not at war with?
Click to expand...
He did sign such legislation, I do not know if he targeted citizens. However, I will give you that he may have infringed upon the rights of a citizen to due process. Is this the extent of your argument that OBama is removing our rights?
 
Red1966

Red1966

Well-Known Member
canndo said:
That's nice, so what rights have been removed in persuit of what of Obama's agendas?
Click to expand...
Religious freedom (birth control mandate), equal rights under law and voting rights (failing to prosecute Black Panthers for violating voting rights) and due process (indefinite detention with out charge or trial, extra-judicial killings of US citizens), all enumerated in the Constitution. Theft of Medicare funds to finance Obamacare was, well, theft, tho may not be a "right". Funding politically active entities (Example:ACORN [also his former employer]) with tax payers money is probably unconstitutional, tho I can't point to any specific section.
 
Red1966

Red1966

Well-Known Member
canndo said:
Again you seem to prefer shocking references and absolutes. Slave, Master, slave trade and the like. I asked what rights were removed and for what agenda. There are few slaves in the U.S. and those that are here are being held illegaly. The rest of what you said is too allegorical to be addressed.
Click to expand...
Many of us are slaves to the bank. Probably off-topic, couldn't resist.
 
canndo

canndo

Well-Known Member
Red1966 said:
Religious freedom (birth control mandate), equal rights under law and voting rights (failing to prosecute Black Panthers for violating voting rights) and due process (indefinite detention with out charge or trial, extra-judicial killings of US citizens), all enumerated in the Constitution. Theft of Medicare funds to finance Obamacare was, well, theft, tho may not be a "right". Funding politically active entities (Example:ACORN [also his former employer]) with tax payers money is probably unconstitutional, tho I can't point to any specific section.
Click to expand...


Thanks Red!

the birth control mandate does not infringe on religious freedom, it simply holds everyone business to the same standard. Failling to prosecute the so called "black panthers" is hardly inhibiting voter rights. You have me on due process rights, as indeed those are being trampled on, but need I remind you that Bush had a well established trend of doing so? that does not mean that Obama's actions are acceptable but to pin the loss of due process on Obama alone is being disengenuous.

No one in the Obama camp is "stealing medicare funds", I certainly hope you aren't buying Romney's lies on this. Funding politicaly active entities with tax money may not be constitutional as you say, but that is not depriving citizens of their rights either.

So we agree in one point, that Obama by way of Bush is depriving us of our due process rights.
While any infringement of rights is abhorrent, this single item is hardly what I would expect after the post seemed to maintain that Obama was in the business of wholesale revocation of our sacred liberties.
 
Red1966

Red1966

Well-Known Member
canndo said:
Thanks Red! the birth control mandate does not infringe on religious freedom, it simply holds everyone business to the same standard. Failling to prosecute the so called "black panthers" is hardly inhibiting voter rights. You have me on due process rights, as indeed those are being trampled on, but need I remind you that Bush had a well established trend of doing so? that does not mean that Obama's actions are acceptable but to pin the loss of due process on Obama alone is being disengenuous. No one in the Obama camp is "stealing medicare funds", I certainly hope you aren't buying Romney's lies on this. Funding politicaly active entities with tax money may not be constitutional as you say, but that is not depriving citizens of their rights either. So we agree in one point, that Obama by way of Bush is depriving us of our due process rights. While any infringement of rights is abhorrent, this single item is hardly what I would expect after the post seemed to maintain that Obama was in the business of wholesale revocation of our sacred liberties.
Click to expand...
A "same standard" that forces them to violate their religious beliefs. The label you put on it doesn't define it. Suppose he required all businesses to have an alter to Baal in their premises? That would fall under your "same standard". What Bush did doesn't absolve Obama's actions. Plus, he did campaign against that exact same issue. Allowing the Black Panthers to inhibit voters from voting is not only failing to protect those rights, as required by his Oath of Office, but encourages more of it. If "stealing medicare funds", is "Romney's lies", why has Obama yet to deny it? It's in the Obamacare bill, if you want to wade thru it. I could add right to life, also. The Obamacare bill includes a provision for "cost containment boards", the "death panels" liberals deny are there. If they can deny you life saving or extending medical care because it cost too much in their opinion, they have participated in your death or incapacitation. Forcing tax payers to support political activity they disagree with violates our right to free speech, not to mention numerous other laws. Any law that is only selectively enforced violates due process and equal protection under the law. Off-topic, but why is nothing ever said about the Kennedy's fortune being derived from illegally importing slaves? A bit of a double standard.
 
OGEvilgenius

OGEvilgenius

Well-Known Member
canndo said:
He did sign such legislation, I do not know if he targeted citizens. However, I will give you that he may have infringed upon the rights of a citizen to due process. Is this the extent of your argument that OBama is removing our rights?
Click to expand...
He did target American citizens. He killed em. Said due process and judicial process weren`t the same so it was perfectly legal. He basically threw out over 800 years of case law suggesting otherwise.

He also just signed a bill limiting free speech.

But due process is only the foundation of just about every legal system there is... no big deal.
 
OGEvilgenius

OGEvilgenius

Well-Known Member
canndo said:
Thanks Red!

the birth control mandate does not infringe on religious freedom, it simply holds everyone business to the same standard. Failling to prosecute the so called "black panthers" is hardly inhibiting voter rights. You have me on due process rights, as indeed those are being trampled on, but need I remind you that Bush had a well established trend of doing so? that does not mean that Obama's actions are acceptable but to pin the loss of due process on Obama alone is being disengenuous.

No one in the Obama camp is "stealing medicare funds", I certainly hope you aren't buying Romney's lies on this. Funding politicaly active entities with tax money may not be constitutional as you say, but that is not depriving citizens of their rights either.

So we agree in one point, that Obama by way of Bush is depriving us of our due process rights.
While any infringement of rights is abhorrent, this single item is hardly what I would expect after the post seemed to maintain that Obama was in the business of wholesale revocation of our sacred liberties.
Click to expand...
Bush has nothing at all to do with what Obama`s done. Obama`s a big boy, he can own his own actions. And his actions indicate an authoritarian fascist.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top